Agenda item

Planning permission sought for HGY/ 2011/0193; the demolition of 1940s extensions to listed villa and replacement with new single storey extension; repairs to fabric and re-planning of interior; extension of terrace to Archway Road to accommodate 4 self contained flats; erection of a detached 4 bedroom residential unit to front onto Cholmeley Park with an associated off-street car parking space; removal of specified trees and planting of new trees and hard and soft landscaping to the site.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions and subject to Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application, site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation responses and recommendations. The planning officer presented the report, and advised the Committee that the proposal had been amended to remove the wording “with an associated off street car parking space”, that the wording of condition 8 to recommendation 4 in the report be amended to remove “to Schedule 2” and that under the planning history, applications HGY/2010/1652 and HGY/2010/1653 had both been withdrawn, rather than ‘not determined’ as set out in the report. The relevant Traffic Management Order would be amended to reflect that the scheme would now be car-free, with free membership of the car club for the first year. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement.

The Committee asked questions of the officer. In response to a question regarding the height of the proposed new building in relation to the properties on Southwood Avenue, it was reported that the gardens of these properties was significantly lower than the site. The Committee asked about the design of the proposed new building in the context of the Conservation Area, in response to which it was reported that the design was largely determined by the site constraints and that there was a wish for the new building to be subordinate and to respect the openness of the site. It was felt that the proposal was sympathetic to its surroundings, although being modern in design.

A local resident, Keith Gold, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Mr Gold outlined the planning history of the site, and advised that local residents did not object to the proposals for the extension of the terrace on Archway Road, nor the refurbishment of the listed building, but that the Cholmeley Park proposal was a concern as it would infringe local residents’ privacy and overlook the gardens of properties on Southwood Avenue. At the very least, the Committee was asked to reduce the height of the proposed new building by 2m. On the basis of the impact the proposal would have on local residents, the Committee was asked to reject the application.

Cllr Allison, Local Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and asked them to reject the application on the grounds of the design of the proposed new building. It was felt to be too high, too wide and with no features of merit. Cllr Allison reported that the design failed to address the concerns put forward by English Heritage and was unattractive. There were no objections to the two other elements of the application. Cllr Hare, Local Ward Councillor, also addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposed new building. Cllr Hare reported that the design related poorly to the landscape, took no account of the comments of English Heritage and was not of sufficient quality for a Conservation Area. The Committee was asked to reject the application.

In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Gold confirmed that due to the drop in level to Southwood Avenue, overlooking was a major issue for local residents.

The applicants addressed the Committee. It was reported that the architect had been in regular contact with the Council’s Planning Department, the CAAC and the Highgate Society and had kept neighbours up to date with the application. The architect, Oliver Burston, outlined the three elements of the scheme. Mr Burston stated that the new building would preserve and enhance the Conservation Area and was situated at an appropriate distance from other properties in accordance with the Council’s planning guidelines. It was reported that only 2 storeys of the property were above ground, and that the proposed evergreen planting would make the 1^st floor less visible. The nature of the site lent itself to a modern design, and the steer from the Highgate Society, the Council and English Heritage had been that they would prefer a modern building, in contrast with the existing surroundings. Paul Shaw, the Landscape Architect addressed the Committee on the proposed landscaping on the site, including a dense evergreen screen between the new building and other properties.

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Burston explained the difference in approach between the terrace extension and the new building on the basis of the different sites. It was confirmed that the new building would be grey, to match the listed villa.

The Committee viewed the plans, and asked further questions of officers. The planning officers advised that the application had to be treated as a whole, as presented to the Committee. In response to a question regarding the possibility of requiring a hydrological survey to be undertaken, the planning officer confirmed that this could be added as a condition, if the Committee wished.

It was moved by Cllr Schmitz and seconded by Cllr Reece that the application be rejected on the grounds that the proposed development to the rear of the site, by reason of its siting, design and footprint represented a cramped form of development which would have an unsympathetic relationship with the listed building and adjoining properties and would adversely affect the residential and visual amenities of adjoining residences, furthermore the introduction of such a development to this part of the site would not preserve the character or the appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to CSV1. On a vote it was:

RESOLVED

That application HGY/2011/0193 be refused on the grounds that the proposed development to the rear of the site, by reason of its siting, design and footprint would represented a cramped form of development which would have an unsympathetic relationship with the Listed Building on site and with adjoining properties, adversely affecting their residential and visual amenities. Furthermore the introduction of such a development on this part of the site would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. As such the proposed development is considered to be contrary to policies UD3 'General Principles', UD4 'Quality Design', CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas'  and CSV2 ‘Listed Building’ of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 and supplementary planning guidance SPG1a 'Design Guidance', SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology' and the Council's 'Housing' Supplementary Planning Document 2008.

Section 106: No